tv [untitled] December 9, 2014 3:00am-3:31am PST
commission planning commission regular hearing. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. when speaking please state your name for the record. i would like to take roll. >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >commissioner christine johnson: moore nth >>commissioner kathrin moore:. item 1, for continuance. 2438
lake street is proposed to continuance for december 11. item 2, 1912, 20th street proposed to continuance january 15, 2015. those are all the continuances i have. >president cindy wu: okay. any public comment? >> public comment is closed. >> i move. >> on that motion, [calling roll] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places you under
commission matters item no. 3, draft minutes for november 13, 2014, and november 20, 2014. >president cindy wu: is there any public comment on the draft minutes? >> public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for november 13th and november 20, 2014. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >commissioner christine johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commission vice-president rodney fong: that motion passes 7-0. item 4. >> i want the commission to know that i met with commissioner fong and talked about the action item list. the action item list is comprised of request that commission
members may make and the secretary and will send it out on weekly basis but there were some items that we discussed that had more to do with a larger policy item and there will be more next year that will help us guide on that. commissioner moore? >> >>commissioner kathrin moore: i asked whether the department would prepare to make an update on our study. i see many parks being inappropriately used and how do we monitor the success and what is the department thinking as it grows is there a network of parks. the director indicated that they would be willing but i would like to add that. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards?
>commissioner dennis richards: what i would like to bring up is the subject of fines. everyday it seems i pick up the paper i see somebody is tangled in a fine situation where they are told they can't do something and they go ahead and they do it. here is another one, it's like the third or fourth time, the tech communicate -- commune they went back and did it. if i park it's 371, if the person demolished the house it's $100,000 and i had a conversation with a prominent real estate attorney and he said, these fines that we charge they are becoming rounding errors in the development game here. i think it's something we need to look at. we have this carat approach and we are sending
bad behavior by sending us miniscule fines and people are doing things they don't want to do and we have policies specifically around cutting trees down and i think this is something that we as a commission should look at in the future. city clerk: commissioners, we can move to item 5. department matters and announcements. >> i have nothing. >> item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors. there was no board of appeals hearing in the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, aaron star, planning department staff. there was no board meeting on land use meeting this week and last week there was. we hope you enjoyed your week off. at the land use committee
was for the notification for the current four priority conservation areas. this is a project that is being headed by the planning department. it has a locally identified location in urgent need of preservation. the purpose of designation to protect key natural lands in the san francisco bay area for purchase of conservation easement. currently san francisco has four cpa's, aqua vista twin peaks and bayview property. the current pch will allow the opportunities for new areas of designation and allow the planning department when determining the factors for selection. it maybe a natural landscape, agricultural land regional opportunity for
urban agreeing. supervisor cohen had two questions and recommended to the full board. also land use for exemption to hospital allow exemption above the height limit for hospitals mechanical equipment with regard to height. this commission heard the item on november 13th of this year and voted unanimously to recommend approval. with no comments from the committee or the public, this item was recommended to the full board. at the full board we had three mills act contracts for 168 pierre street and wallace street and one for 621 wallace street. they were all approved by the board on 9-1 with supervisors avalos exempting and cohen excused. the next item the restricted use district passed it's first read then we had an appeal for
conditional use authorization an appeal for demolished units for 15 bedrooms. the board unanimously rejected the cu and rejected the appellant. supervisor mar comments the city loses and commented that the city has multiple policies concerning existing affordable housing policy. supervisor breed she was okay with the dilapidated houses and supervisor -- and therefore she would be voting on the for the appellant. supervisor tang commented that decided when new housing produced is more valuable than existing affordable housing is crucial and she would like to work
with the department to figure this out. and taking their vote, the board referencing the policy whether the project converts from rental housing to tenure or occupancy and whether the rental units subject to arbitration for affordable housing and whether it preserves cultural and economic diversity whether the project conserves the neighborhood character to preserve the neighborhood and whether the project increases the number of affordable units govnd by section 4 and we will convene with the board to discuss this. next at the board it was appeal for the environmental exemption for 2853 broderick street to continue
fob february 9th. and with wawona street was withdrawn. finally the hospital height exemption received it's first read and passed at the board. there were two introductions last week, one was an interim ordinance on new massage establishment sponsored by supervisor tang regarding interim controls for any new massage establishments for 18 moss in response to recent changes in law regarding massage establishments and the mayor's ordinance concerning homeless shelters, the ordinance amends the planning code for zoning open space in compliance with the california code requirements and administer the code between the contracts with the city and shall operate to contain
operational standards. and that item will be coming to you for your review and comment. thank you. >president cindy wu: commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: were they present? >> >> they were. >> they returned a minimum of 8 votes. three could have prevented it? >> yes. >> thank you. >president cindy wu: commissioner richards? >> richards >commissioner dennis richards: can you tell us what happened to 114 graph hill. >> the board held a position on that.
>> president tim fry requested that i update you on the appropriateness for the mission theatre on mission street which was approved with conditions with the draft eir and will be coming to you next week but most importantly they held their cultural assets committee meeting before the regular historic heritage commission and an aid from supervisors campos regarding the legacy. if there is nothing further, we can move to general public comment. public comment:at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to
agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue public comment to another time during the meeting. 1234 i have one speaker card. >president cindy wu: is there general public comment? >> first i want to introduce my son, ronald lee who lives in palo alto who came to help me and my granddaughter who lives in san francisco and they want to come up. allison
lee. i may stay within my 3 minutes. i group my stuff into two groups. group one is my complaint, my problem with rezoning of the 8th avenue property back to the way it was when i bought it in 1964 and group one includes my problem with safe way. i lived there since 1964 and since 1958 been 6 years apart. i have been there a long time and we are involved with all sorts of things now. so i'm giving you group one
and group two. i'm a retired schoolteacher. i tend to have some of the old stuff. i have an old binder. group one, i'm trying to stay within my 3 minutes. group one, my property resold back to the way it was. it was r 3 and being next door to safe way i have the right to commercialize it and the second part of group 1, a safe way gave me a safe way back yard agreement on november 15, '07. i do not agree with them. i refuse to sign it. i want to state this so my son or granddaughter knows that. the rezoning is public matter and the safe way back yard problem is a private matter.
they have to learn that distinction. group 2 is support historical dates and experiences etc. the problems, there are two, one is self appointed, not elected, private. the second one was through the enrichment program. i was elected a chairperson. i didn't have a problem with those people. time is up, right? thanks. i made it this time. >president cindy wu: thank you.
commissioner moore? >> >>commissioner kathrin moore: can i ask something regarding the presentation. the folder was a rather large piece, would someone who was somewhat involved in this review the folder so we can at least fully understand the comments just made. >> commissioner moore, i will be sure to pass that along to the appropriate team member. >> thank you. >> sue hester with two things. first thing is would you pay particular attention to speaking into your microphones. it's really hard hearing the audience when people sit back and assume that voice is going out. that applies to commissioners as well as the public. second thing is we have become supremely jaded. the last hearing of this commission
was a long hearing because of comments on the 5m eir. at the end of the meeting the planning commission extended the comment period in presence of all the people watching online, in home or in the audience. that was reversed at 5:00 on friday by the planning department. the notice came to a couple of us. it was 5:00 on friday. friday when people were leaving for thanksgiving. it didn't even come to the commission sector to the commission. a couple of you got the notice. people who got the eir and eir notice or who attended the hearing or saw it online have no idea what the
planning commission, that the planning commission was over ruled by staff. the new deadline is december 17th, which is really going to be difficult because we had an election. it's a 700 page eir, equivalent to a rezoning as well as a project approval. it's carving out an area that isn't in the central soma plan. it's carving out an area that isn't in the downtown, that isn't in the areas that it's going to be rezoned on market street. so, we have become so cavalier that it isn't even noticed to the general public. i don't think that's legal in this city city attorney. i think people have the right to comment period to which that the commission set at the last hearing, not which a couple were informed by an e-mail from
the department that have been truncated by the approximate weeks. there is no respect for election no respect for really complicated project and having a 700 page eir dumped on you when you have to read it to find out what's going on. projects as massive like that have to have a presentation more than 5 minutes before the hearing. no one understand the project. thank you. >president cindy wu: is there additional general public comment? >> good afternoon. my name is
patrick adams. it's come to my attention recently that when the supervisor loosened the control in the castro relative to the use. as a result of that, it's become the wild west where virtually anyone short of formula retail can change the use from whatever it is to whatever they desire it to be. i sure hope the planning department would look at this issue and realize it's time to engage in some of those controls. thank you. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: is the commissioner allowed to ask a follow up request to a public comment which has been made? >> it's really not intended as a question and answer period, but we can go back to the commission
comments and questions period and we can reopen that and you can pose a question. >> would you be inclined president wu with regard to a question. i would like a question regarding to the continuing of the project that ms. hester made and i would like to ask the city attorney if the commission for all the correct reasons requested a continuance is entitled with more motions made than anything else and the eir to look at it careful ly and is mandatory for us that is overloads -- over ruled and that we are not notified in a timely manner. would you please comment on that? >president cindy wu: i do think we
should not take comments at this time because it was not agendaized i think we are treading on a certain line. i will follow up with secretary and the attorney to get an answer. >> okay. >> can i also relating to the same thing. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i don't expect an answer now but it's for staff to look into. i believe we have voted for january 15th if i'm not mistaken what the time was and i asked within the hearing as to any limit on the amount of time that could be allowed and i don't know whether it had anything to do with the truncate of the period. >> my recollection from that hearing
and this goes more generally to how we handle things at the commission level was that i don't remember actually having a vote on that date. it was the commission deciding that we should extend the period and sort of giving the direction that the date should be january 15th. so my question is one, what's the date for the eir and two, what should be our general policy as maybe for other commissions or how we handle issues like that. i think a lot of times when we make more informal statements of direction to staff and i feel like if this is a problem for this particular issue, we might think about just being more careful about actually taking motions when we want to take direction from staff. questions, what is to happen and the date. >president cindy wu: if we
can get a response in writing that will be appreciated. city clerk: commissioners, that will put you on the regular calendar. 1321 mission street - informational presentation of the 1, >> the item before you is a presentation. i will provide you with a brief overview of the approved project as well as the planning code requirement for public art. then ken coleman will provide you an overview of the proposed art. in early -- they proposed the project at 1321 mission street with retail of the
ground floor. of the 160 dwelling units, 40 are suites. i did dshg -- 80 of the propose units are for student housing. it amounts to the one 1 percent of the cost of the development. the project sponsor a local sculpture to satisfy this requirement. the planning department assigns this artwork complies with section 429. the cost of the proposed art exceeds 100 percent. this will be visible from the public right-of-way and not considered a component of the building. the project approval also requires the concept and location be submitted for reviewed by the planning director and staff is seeking comments as to the content and location as to the proposed art location.
that concludes my presentation and i will turn it over to ken coleman. thank you. >> hello, i'm the artist. ken kellman. i'm going to just talk a little bit about my concept and vision that has to do with this sculpture. this piece involves the constantly of wind and ever changing light. the work will be attached to the exterior of the building in relief, it's entirely made of aluminum and will create a shadow on the surface depending on the time of day. the overall intent is to create an experience that will enhance and advance the forward concepts
in contemporary design of this extraordinary building. this sculpture is organized vertically which allows the stable and architectural lines of the building. this vertical visual movement is created using aluminum bars and repeated pattern from top to bottom over laid on this structure is wave elements smooth and flowing. the visual experiences of this overlapping curve is both calming and smooth, the waves are reminiscent of sound wave patterns and the movement of water seen from above. it's a deep blue reminiscent of blue water.
these shapes blow in the wind when the wind blows. these spinning shapes will not overwhelm and move in different rates. as well as the sculpture going on the south side of the building i designed awnings that i'm constructing i feel they are part of this piece. this is no spinning kinetic elements. like in the film industry there is something called cookies and there will be a dopelling effect that will create patterns on the sidewalk and